Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Input, Evidence, and Exposure in Language Acquisition: Studies in honour of Susanne E. Carroll
Edited by Lindsay Hracs
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 69] 2024
► pp. 226–244

Chapter 9
Speech modifications and the Processability Theory hierarchy

Some observations on word order in Swedish L1 and L2 input

| Lund University | Linnaeus University
This study explores to what extent there is a difference in input in L1 and L2 Swedish regarding word order. Swedish is a V2 language with only one constituent preceding the tensed verb. This phenomenon is acquired in different ways by L1 and L2 learners. L1 learners produce V2 without errors around the age of two years whereas L2 learners experience long-lasting problems with the postverbal placement of the subject. The reason for this difference is not fully understood. This study set out to investigate the characteristics of the ambient language in the two acquisition conditions. The results reveal a lot of variation but also differences in the input which suggest that ‘input simplification’ is not always helpful.
Keywords: V2, subject-verb inversion, Swedish, L1 acquisition, L2 acquisition, input, Processability Theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Simplified registers
    • 2.1Does ‘simplification’ help acquisition?
    • 2.2Canonical word order against text cohesion
    • 2.3Canonical order and developmental stages
  • 3.The acquisition of Swedish grammar
    • 3.1L1 acquisition
    • 3.2L2 acquisition
    • 3.3Input
  • 4.Present study: Teacher Talk narrative to L1 and L2 listeners
    • 4.1Participants and data collection
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Relation to PT
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (57)
References
Armon-Lotem, S., de Jong, J. & Meir, N. (eds). 2015. Assessing Multilingual Children. Disentangling Bilingualism from Language Impairment. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benders, T. 2013. Mommy is only happy! Dutch mothers’ realisation of speech sounds in infant-directed speech expresses emotion, not didactic intent. Infant Behavior and Development 36(4): 847–862. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolander, M. 1988. Is there any order? On word order in Swedish learner language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9(1–2): 97–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolin, I. & Bolin, M. 1916. De två första årens språkutveckling hos en svensk flicka [The two first years’ language development in a Swedish girl]. Svenskt Arkiv för Pedagogik 4:159–223.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. E. 2001. Input and Evidence. The Raw Material of Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, C.-J. & Luo, Y.-H. 2020. A longitudinal study of maternal interaction strategies during joint book-reading in Taiwan. Journal of Child Language 47(2): 401–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. 1988. Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colliander, G. 1993. Profiling second language development of Swedish: A method for assessing L2 proficiency. In Problem, Process, Product in Language Learning, B. Hammarberg (ed.), 32–47. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Department of LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1977. ‘Simple codes’ and the source of the second language learners’ initial heuristic hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1: 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Pickering, M. J. & Sorace, A. 2008. Alignment in second language dialogue. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(4): 528–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristia, A. & Seidl, A. 2014. The hyperarticulation hypothesis of infant-directed speech. Journal of Child Language 41(4): 913–934. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dracos, M. 2018. Teacher talk and Spanish subject personal pronouns. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 5(1): 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eaves Jr., B. S., Feldman, N. H., Griffiths, T. L. & Shafto, P. 2016. Infant-directed speech is consistent with teaching. Psychological Review 123(6): 758–771. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eklund Heinonen, M. 2009. Processbarhet på prov. Bedömning av muntlig språkfärdighet hos vuxna andraspråksinlärare [Processability in Tests. Assessment of Oral Language Proficiency in Adult Second Language Learners]. PhD dissertation, Uppsala University.
Ferguson, C. 1977. Baby talk as a simplified register. In Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition, C. Snow & C. A. Ferguson (eds), 209–235. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1981. ‘Foreigner talk’ as the name of a simplified register. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1981(28): 9–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glahn, E., Håkansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A. & Hvenekilde, A. 2001. Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23(3): 389–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G. 1987. Teacher Talk: How Teachers Modify Their Speech When Addressing Learners of Swedish as a Second Language. PhD dissertation. Lund: Lund University Press.
1998. Modern times in L2 Swedish. Syntax and morphology in formal and informal acquisition of Swedish. In Views on the Acquisition and Use of a Second Language. EuroSLA 7 Proceedings, L. Diaz & C. Perez (eds), 39–50. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
2017. Typological and developmental considerations on Specific Language Impairment in monolingual and bilingual children: A Processability Theory account. Language Acquisition 24(3): 265–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G. & Nettelbladt, U. 1993. Developmental sequences in L1 (normal and impaired) and L2 acquisition of Swedish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 3(2): 131–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Similarities between SLI and L2 children. Evidence from the acquisition of Swedish word order. In Children’s Language, Vol. 9, C. Johnson & J. Gilbert (eds), 135–151. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. & Norrby, C. 2010. Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning 60(3): 628–650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hammarberg, B. & Viberg, Å. 1977. The place-holder constraint, language typology, and the teaching of Swedish to immigrants. Studia Linguistica 31(2), 106–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. 1983. Simplified input and second language acquisition. In Pidginization and Creolization as Language Acquisition, R. W. Andersen (ed.), 64–86. Rowley MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Henzl, V. 1979. Foreign talk in the classroom. IRAL 17(2): 159–167.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. 1977. Implicational patterns in interlanguage syntax variation. Language Learning 27(2): 383–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jörgensen, N. 1976. Meningsbyggnaden i talad svenska. [Sentence Structure in Spoken Swedish]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Josefsson, G. 2003. Input and output: Sentence patterns in child and adult Swedish. In The Acquisition of Swedish Grammar, G. Josefsson, C. Platzack & G. Håkansson (eds), 95–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Andruski, J. E., Chistovich, I. A., Chistovich, L. A., Kozhevnikova, E. V., Ryskina, V. L., Stolyarova, E. I., Sundberg, U. & Lacerda, F. 1997. Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science 277(5326): 684–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lange, S. & Larsson, K. 1977. Studier i det tidiga barnspråkets grammatik [Studies in Early Child Grammar]. PhD dissertation, Stockholm University.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1985. State of the art on input in second language acquisition. In Input in Second Language Acquisition, S. Gass & C. Madden (eds), 433–444. Rowley MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. 1985. Input and second language acquisition theory. In Input in Second Language Acquisition, S. Gass, & C. Madden (eds), 377–393. Rowley MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Månsson, A-C. & Ahlsén, E. 2001. Grammatical features of aphasia in Swedish. Journal of Neurolinguistics 14(2–4): 365–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, A., Schatz, T., Versteegh, M., Miyazawa, K., Mazuka, R., & Dupoux, E. 2015. Mothers speak less clearly to infants than to adults: A comprehensive test of the hyperarticulation hypothesis. Psychological Science 26(3): 341–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Butler Songer, N. & Kintsch, W. 1996. Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction 14(1): 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. 1980. Linguistic simplification. In Second Language Development: Trends and Issues, S. W. Felix (ed.), 13–40. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Naumann, K. 1997. Svenska som främmande språk i Schweiz [Swedish as a foreign language in Switzerland]. In Svenskans beskrivning 22, G. Håkansson, L. Lötmarker, L. Santesson, J. Svensson & Å. Viberg (eds), 318–334. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. 2010. The interface between bilingual development and specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics 31(2): 227–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. 1998. Language Processing and Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. An outline of Processability Theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning 65(1): 123–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Håkansson, G. 1999. A unified approach towards the development of Swedish as L2: A processability account. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(3): 383–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Platzack, C. 2001. The vulnerable C-domain. Brain and Language 77(3): 364–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, K. & Strömqvist, S. 1992. The acquisition of Scandinavian languages. In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 3, D. Slobin (ed.), 457–556. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Reichenberg, M. 2000. Röst och kausalitet i lärobokstexter. En studie av elevers förståelse av olika textversioner [Voice and Causality in Textbooks. A Study of Students’ Comprehension of Different Versions of Swedish Texts]. PhD dissertation, Göteborg University.
Santelmann, L. 2003. The acquisition of Swedish wh-questions. In The Acquisition of Swedish Grammar, G. Josefsson, C. Platzack & G. Håkansson (eds), 261–305. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sayehli, S. 2013. Developmental Perspectives on Transfer in Third Language Acquisition. PhD dissertation, Lund University.
Schönström, K. 2014. Visual acquisition of Swedish in deaf children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4(1): 61–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shatz, M. & Gelman, R. 1977. Beyond syntax: The influence of conversational constraints on speech modifications. In Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition, C. Snow & C. A. Ferguson (eds), 189–198. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Silvén, M., Ahtola, A. & Niemi, P. 2003. Early words, multiword utterances, and maternal reading strategies as predictors of mastering word inflections in Finnish. Journal of Child Language 30(2): 253–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snow, C. 1972. Mothers’ speech to children learning language. Child Development 43(2): 549–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uther, M., Knoll, M. A. & Burnham, D. 2007. Do you speak E-NG-L-I-SH? A comparison of foreigner‑ and infant-directed speech. Speech Communication 49(1): 2–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waldmann, C. 2008. Input och output. Ordföljd i svenska barns huvudsatser och bisatser [Input and Output. Word Order in Swedish Children’s Main and Subordinate Clauses]. PhD dissertation, Lund University.
Wesche, M. B. 1994. Input and interaction in second language acquisition. In Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition, C. Gallaway & B. J. Richards (eds), 219–249. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wesche, M. B. & Ready, D. 1985. Foreigner talk in the university classroom. In Input in Second Language Acquisition, S. Gass & C. Madden (eds), 89–114. Rowley MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar